Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus to do anything has been established, although merging can be discussed on the various talk pages since it is an editorial decision. --Coredesat 06:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone Articles for deletion/Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (3rd nomination)
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Hopeless WP:OR and listcruft which has no place on Wikipedia. Will (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also nominated:
  • I admit when I made these I was very unaquainted with policy, and felt it was okay just to dump all my knowledge into an article. However, not all of it "has no place" on Wikipedia. There's an article by DigitalSpy that discusses changes to the films and reactions from fans to them, which is important. I would say that the changes in casting between films is already visually covered at List of Harry Potter films cast members, and it is trivial to list every single character that appeared in the book and not in the film, but some of the really significant plot changes are obviously notable, and can be referenced to that article, and those are the bits of information which I think should be kept in a very limited merge to the appropriate film article. Incidentally, can we merge all five AfDs together? I have the same comments for all of them. Never mind, I see that's what this is. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not original research, this is research from a book and a movie and thus deserves it own article.→041744 13:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:OR and WP:SYN. Will (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
      Is a novel position being advanced? I don't see any position being taken. Looks like a collection of verifiable facts to me. RandomCritic 14:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    "Thing X happens in the books while it doesn't in the film, therefore it is a difference." is an obvious "A and B, therefore C" synthesis. Will (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    What position is being advanced in this case? Zakolantern 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OR - "The only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." There is no reliable source that directly covers the differences between the book and the film, only the separate sources of the book and the film. These separate sources have been brought together by editors who contribute the results of their analysis, so this article's contents fails verifiability. Even if there was a reliable source that covers the differences, the article should be limited to what that reliable source covers. It is still original research to "pad" the topic with one's own personal observations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to movie articles. A whole article dedicated to this isn't neccesary. It could just be a small section in the movie article. The Placebo Effect 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Nice compromise The Placebo Effect. I agree, would be a great addition to the articles. Shoessss |  Chat  14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge I agree with RandomCritic that no position is clearly being advanced by stating as facts the differences between the books and the movies, and while it is true that those differences don't need their own article they should be included in the movies' articles. --Edward Tremel 14:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I think that these articles are helpful to people who don't care about reading, and will probably be edited to the point where the added text will be deleted completely over time. I agree that it is 'kind of' useless to have these extra articles, but they would have a hard time fitting into the articles and what a waste if they were deleted--Kkrouni 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - They are well-written, are definitely not original research, and should be very useful to anyone who has read the books without seeing the movies or vica versa.Zakolantern 19:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Listcruft and original research. Gnfnrf 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I already gave my (brief) opinion above, but I wanted to ask someone to explain what exactly is OR or SYN in these articles. I read them as a series of facts, that does not conclude or suppose anything at all. It is a verifiable fact that a given event was or was not written into a book or movie. As for Synthesis, I don't see the issue. If the articles proposed that because the given items are present in the book and not the movie, the movie is worse, that would be one thing. If it included unverifiable discussion of dialogue between Rowling and the script-writers, that would also be bad. But I don't see the problem here. Zakolantern 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and don't merge Since the article is about an intersection of two articles, it should be in its own article space, and not merged with the film or the book, but be easily accessible from both. Listcruft? The article doesn't even have a list, it contains a table. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and don't merge This is a well written article. It's arguable that this is excessive information for Wikipedia, however, it is doing no harm here - and unlike a physical encyclopedia, wikipedia is not constrained by space limits. Although this is somewhat esoteric, that's not really a problem per se; while I'd like to see a more balanced wikipedia (eg improved physics articles), pruning one part of the "tree" won't make another part suddenly grow!--RichardNeill 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "It doesn't do any harm" is not considered a valid argument to keep. The article contains no real-world context that would be suitable for an encyclopedia; it is original research drawn together by the editors themselves without any use of independent significant coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into the film articles. Yonatan talk 23:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is pure bullying. This is a fantastic topic for an article and it nicely highlights some crucial points relating to both movie and book. It should not be merged with the movie article, which would suggest that this concept is merely an anomaly. Harry Potter novels are not like any other novels -- they are read and reread in almost cult-like fashion, and the media storm that surrounded each preview and publication date and movie release proves this point. Should it be merged into the movie, it will be lost. These stand by themselves. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Great work on this but I think this should be merged with the artical specifically discussing the movie. User:Fabboi03Fabboi03 07:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this needs to be pointed out, but the above recommendation is the only contribution by the editor on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete because these articles are written with original research. The topics fail notability standards because there is no independent, significant coverage from sources other than the editors themselves. Without this coverage, the editors are able to take it upon themselves to report any difference, major or minor, resulting in a compilation of indiscriminate information which has zero encyclopedic bearing. It is very obvious that when one medium is translated into another, many items will change for conventional or creative reasons. What should be reported in an encyclopedic context are explanations why the changes were made, because these differences will have real-world context. These articles have zero real-world context and fail notability standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and don't merge. These are very useful pages that, if merged into their film articles, would have to be shortened and reduced in detail and size in order to fit within the film article appropriately. Thus I think it's good to have a separate article for each of these. I also believe that no matter what happens, the bigger books (i.e. Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix, Deathly Hallows in particular) will more than likely need their own article for this anyways, because much more was cut or altered. Might as well keep them all, then, IMO. --midkay 14:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Saying "It's useful" is not considered a valid argument to keep. Editors personally wrote the content themselves without drawing upon independent significant coverage. The articles are completely subject to the original contributors' whim and has no real-world context, which Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is supposed to contain. This information is fine in a Harry Potter Wikia or a fan site, but the content has no encyclopedic value. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Not only is there a bit of original research going on, but it's dangling awfully close to a copyright violation. I just pulled this from the "plot differences section".
    Novel

    The Dursleys leave their house at Number 4, Privet Drive to escape the horde of owls delivering letters to Harry. They travel to a place called the Railview Hotel, but are soon bombarded with the same letters. They move to a desolate hut on a rock, far out to sea, when Rubeus Hagrid breaks down the door on July 31, Harry's birthday, and hand-delivers the letter, an acceptance letter to the Hogwarts school. Hagrid takes Harry shopping for his supplies at Diagon Alley, and returns Harry to the Dursleys for about a month before he is to board the Hogwarts Express on September 1.

    Film

    The Dursleys leave their house at Number 4, Privet Drive to escape the horde of owls delivering letters to Harry. They travel to a desolate hut on a rock, far out to sea, when Rubeus Hagrid breaks down the door on July 31, Harry's birthday, and hand-delivers the letter, an acceptance letter to the Hogwarts school. Hagrid takes Harry shopping for his supplies at Diagon Alley. It is assumed they spend the time at The Leaky Cauldron before he is to board the Hogwarts Express on September 1.

    You can't just copy huge exerts from the book, or a script. I can't verify that they aren't word for word copies, which would be even worse then simply writing it yourself with such details. You need reliably published sources that discuss the differences in the novels and explain why they are important. Anyone can quote a site the lists all the differences. This is merely an indiscriminate collection of copyrighted information. Not only are you not even citing the novel and film (which wouldn't help the situation other than proving that's where you got it), but nothing says why any of this actually matters, except maybe to fans of the books.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I can't quite see how this would be a copyright violation at all. While I'm not saying that the writing of plot details in such intricate detail isn't in violation of other policies like WP:NOT#IINFO, it certainly is not a violation of copyright. The paragraph under the Novel header takes about two chapters in the book, and I can guarantee you on good faith that when I wrote that paragraph it was entirely in my words. The paragraph under the Film header takes approximately seven or eight minutes in the movie, amidst much dialogue. Why would it be a copyright violation for recounting details of a plot? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Bignole is not suggesting that the excessive detail is a copyright violation in the strictest sense of copy-and-paste. However, per WP:FUC #2, 3, and 5, the detail is potentially too excessive, especially per the various arguments that have been presented about the articles failing to have encyclopedic value. In addition, per WP:IINFO #2, the details in the tables can be considered plot summaries as they lack any real-world context or sourced analysis (which does not mean an editor comparing the book and the film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to copy and paste something to be a copyright violation (b/c that would be plain plagarism, since there isn't a source for any of it listed...in this case it would have to be the page you got the information from). But, excessive detail, when you have supplied no justification for fair use (as the book itself is a copyrighted piece of material), you can be subjected to a copy vio lawsuit. A gent was successfully sued for having Seinfeld quotes in a book he wrote, those are one-liners (though he had a lot, which is why he got sued). This page, and the others are entire scenes which are mapped out, detail for detail. You couldn't publish a book that simply laid out detailed scenes from another book, and detailed scenes from a movie and leave it at that. It's not even as simple as one-lined information, there are fully paragraphs of information that do nothing but detail scenes, all the way down to a street name (even when it isn't any different in the film). That's infringing on Rowling's rights, because there's no critical commentary to go along with it to suggest a reason for the comparison.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That is not an adequate description of American copyright law; I can't speak to the laws of other countries. In America, to violate copyright you have to reproduce the text or create a work derivative of it (other than parody, commentary, etc.). Merely providing a description of the content of a story is not a violation of copyright. Copyright protects the rights of an author to the text he or she produces, and the right to create new works derived from the original work. It does not protect the ideas, concepts, facts or pseudofacts mentioned in the work. RandomCritic 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
As noted above, your have to directly reproduce the text to violate the copyright. Descriptions of copyrighted material do not violate the copyright. Case in point: CliffsNotes. Aexia 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This could be considered an infringement, considering how detailed the replication of the book is, and of the script of the film. It's one thing to say "Harry went here in the book, but in the film he went here", and another to start writing out entire scenes in a book, and entire scenes in a film, with no "original commentary" attached. If someone published a chapter of "the Philosopher's Stone", that would be infringing on the rights the copyright. It isn't the whole book. It's created a derivative. Considering this page is a list of "all differences" in these books, and these huge scene descriptions, you could classify the sum as a derivative work. The fact that so much of the text is reproduced, simple to line up with the film scenes, you could (as I said before, "it is dangling awfully close", not it is violating) get pinched for it. It's harder to explain the encyclopedic purposes of that much detail, when the actual difference in the two versions is only a single sentence worth of information in most cases.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom, Eric and Bignole. This information has no place in an encylopedia, especially one that is supposed to be free content. Seraphim Whipp 14:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per Erik and Bignole. I've long felt iffy about this series of articles, but what it comes down to is that these articles are original research by synthesis. It's a great place for nitpicky Harry Potter fans to compare and contrast trivial chunks of passages with the corresponding movie, but it has absolutely no encyclopedic value. I would also argue that it borders on WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#INFO violations. María (críticame) 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've already made my recommendation a few entries above, but I believe that another argument for deletion is that these articles violate WP:WAF criteria. "Articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, events, or locations should discuss their authorship and their significance outside the narrative." This is not done with these articles. Another WP:WAF criteria: "The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information." (Boldface is not mine.) Primary information includes the plot, which is acceptable here, but there is no usage of secondary sources in this article, which is required in dealing with fictional subjects like the books and films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unless you use the book as the primary and the movie as the secondary! Shoessss |  Chat  15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:WAF#Secondary information does not include the film as a secondary source; it is just another primary source, since plot information is being drawn upon from the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Commenter fails to mention the following:
"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."
This article makes descriptive claims whose accuracy is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge; it also makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.RandomCritic 01:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll yield to this wording, as I did not notice this. However, the wording states for rare occasions, so why again should this be kept? As it's been said before, the translation from one medium to another will obviously have conventional and creative differences. Such changes are widespread among adaptations and do not seem to be considered "rare occasions" of depending on primary sources. There are other arguments that have been presented as well: WP:WAF denotes writing about fiction should include primary and secondary sources. WP:IINFO denotes that writing plot summaries (multiple summaries of multiple parts of the plot here) requires real-world context behind them as they are otherwise indiscriminate information, and WP:NOTE reflects that these topics would only be permissible with the independent coverage of secondary reliable sources, with zero reliable sources existing in any of these articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, As Harry Potter is one of the most successful series and franchises, the differences between the books and the films have received much coverage in the mainstream media, from film critics and fans. These articles cover a notable topic, in addition to being well-written and well-organized. The articles may need more sources and references, and those can be found and added. I would not consider the current state of these articles to be WP:OR; all the information presented is directly taken from the books and the films. The articles do not analyze any of the differences or draw any of their own conclusions; all the information is factual. It is verifiable and does not promote any particular point of view. These pages are a good resource for Wikipedia readers researching film adaptions or the Harry Potter series. --musicpvm 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The popularity of a topic does not permit one to add their own analysis of two separate sources. This is synthesis, and the lack of independent, secondary sources in all of these articles (except for one, which only cites sources in a small table for the exclusion of characters from a preceding film) fails to grant notability to the entries that the editors have included themselves from their own deduction. With such a system of original research in place, there is no criteria in the form of reliable sources (independent and secondary) to narrow the scope of differences between the books and films to those that can be considered encyclopedic. Here's an excerpt: "The forest in which Harry, Hermione, Neville and Draco serve their detention is called the Forbidden Forest," and "The forest in which Harry, Ron, Hermione and Draco serve their detention is called the Dark Forest." There is zero real-world context or notability in such a context because an editor originally contributed this comparison after deducting on his or her own that including the difference was relevant. It's been argued that it is not original research to present information from two sources for the reader to deduct, but it is original research for the editor to subjectively determine if a difference is appropriate for inclusion, void of any backing by any independent, secondary source. Such differences, such as the difference between the names of the forests, teach readers on Wikipedia nothing of their real-world context or notability. I can contest this difference about forest names because it has zero backing, but if there was a reliable source from the screenwriter who explains why the change was made, that is generally impervious to criticism of lacking real-world context/notability. The differences in writing for the film, in my opinion, should be similar to what can be found at Road to Perdition#Writing, a personal example. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Frivolous criticism. Deciding what is important to talk about and what's not is a characteristic, not of "original research", but of writing. There isn't a single article on Wikipedia where an editor has not exercised some choice in deciding what to mention on a topic and what not. Are all Wikipedia articles original research then? By commenter's criteria, yes. So let's delete the whole thing.RandomCritic 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Editors are not choosing from reliable sources about the topic to include in the article. The editors are dictating the information from their own comparisons of two primary sources when there was none to be had before. Frivolous argument. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. However, I would like to see the differences linked to sources. For now, it looks a little like WP:OR. Hervegirod 20:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Alot of work went into this and it is all verifiable. I truley don't see the objection to this article!!71.241.249.190 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteIt is acceptable to assume that a novel and its movie adaptation will have differences regarding to the plot. However, these differences are prone to original research and do not need an entry in an encyclopedia. Tomj 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Another option: I'm fairly sure I've read something about this on [1] or [2], which are "real" sources, and have passed the point of being just fansites, in my opinion, by virtue of being cited as valid sources in multiple major news outlets, including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, and being referenced positively on the author's own website. I don't have the time or expertise, but someone might want to try to pull information from them to source the articles. NOTE: to verify this, just search for their names in the NYTimes search engine for example. Zakolantern 00:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, we definitely rely a lot on the reporting of Leaky and MuggleNet, the reliability of which is explained at Harry Potter fandom. The Harry Potter Lexicon also has a page on changes. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I wish they'd had something like this when I had to write a book report in junior high. Mandsford 00:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The original argument for the deletion is "original research", but everything listed is fact. There is no room for opinion on the page - scenes were either kept, changed, or eliminated from the movies. Supertigerman 02:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There are multiple arguments for deletion, not just the basis of original research. These articles have been explained to fail WP:IINFO, WP:NOTE, and WP:WAF criteria. The information, without real-world context, are indiscriminate plot details, have no independent, significant reliable sources to determine the notability of the information included, and only primary sources have been used in these articles. The usage of solely primary sources referring to each other to convey information about a topic is original research. The simple fact is that Wikipedia should not contain originally contributed indiscriminate information drawn from primary sources instead of verifiable information from independent, secondary sources that address the information's notability and real-world context. That's the argument in a nutshell. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep These are helpful articles. Using primary sources is not original research. I think this would be cut from a paper encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is NOT a paper encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Would merge all into a Harry Potter canon article if you want to just keep the major plot and character differences, articles on fictional canons exist for Star Trek and Star Wars. Wl219 09:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. You haven't actually given any specific reason why these articles should be kept. Seraphim Whipp 10:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Response If people can "delete per nom" then why can't I "keep per other keeps"? Wl219 12:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Ahh. Ok, that makes more sense then, but it looked like WP:JUSTAVOTE. Your vote would be more insightful if you explained your views/a good reason for keeping the articles because a few of the other keep votes (for which you are basing your vote) have got very little basis for keeeping the article. Seraphim Whipp 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Response In fact, people can't delete "per nom" as per WP:PERNOM Tomj 13:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well whup-tee-doo, that hasn't stopped those from appearing in AfD. Fine, change my vote to merge to Harry Potter canon. Wl219 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm starting to see a lot of straw men arguments in this AfD, with arguments such as "It's useful, don't delete" and "People put effort into it, don't delete". These types of fallacious arguments don't address the fact that the articles have little or no sources, are collections of indiscriminate information where the writer has used bias/subjective about what to include and there is no critical analysis to justify the use of word-for-word copyrighted material or plagiarised content. Seraphim Whipp 10:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge not every change is notable, being there will always be differences between medium, and what's important is the why behind the fiction. Alientraveller 11:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all they all belong on a fansite and not here. Lugnuts 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Zakolantern. --Philip Stevens 21:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as above this is just lots of original research and in many places seems to try and hilight why the changes for the film create plot holes. Again, belongs on a fansite. Tnomad 21:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Rewrite: This is not original research, this is merely stating the key differences between the movies and the books. Of course rewriting the articles to shorten it and merging them together would hurt either because it would avoid using too much information for a mere explanation. Just to be clear on things I am the type who would prefer to think on redesigning plans and ONLY use a proposed deletion as a last resort. -Adv193 00:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Besides, after reviewing I would say to just rewrite the articles and remove all side comments to the DVD's and anything that sounds like a simpleton's theory and make into smaller summaries with the least amount of wording possible such as avoiding on explaining it like a book and just explain the plot differences only. -Adv193 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all - Individually, they aren't much, but when you take the lot they are kinda notable. So merge everything REALLY worthwhile into one article. Giggy Talk | Review 04:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep should ofc be keept... They show the differences which are fun to read if you've missed any and shows how sucky the movies are, changing storys and cutting everything out :) ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 18:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/Merge All - I like the suggestion of either merging all these differences articles into one. Otherwise, merge the information back into the article about the film. Aexia 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - Does the fact that some of these articles exist in other language versions of Wikipedia have any bearing on this, or any, AfD either for or against? (I preseume a deletion in one article does not cascade to another language, but would rather be AfD'd there.) Just wondering. Thanks. --EarthPerson 23:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Different projects are allowed to set their own local rules for inclusion. Other than NPOV and adherence to copyright and free content rules, the Foundation does not set content policies, each local project does, so it's entirely possible that a subject could pass one language's inclusion rules but fail another's. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge the sourced items to the parent article. WP:NOT a fansite. (That might technically not be in there, but it should be.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The reason why I also want to go for rewrite in addition to a merge to the film articles is because the current format is too much like a plot summary and may as some people state contains speculation. Instead by trimming it down and only state the main facts it will help put down these problems. -Adv193 07:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no merge Per Wikipedia is not for original research. Whispering 14:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is very useful information. I came specifically to this article to refresh my memory of differences between the book and the film. 68.166.88.10 15:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Ursasapien and Zakolantern. Also the articles are really useful and clearly show many differences between the films and the books. - Nick C 15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge Though not OR, most information in this article is trivial. Anything you can source should be put on the movie's page. There are going to be many minor changes in any book to movie or movie to book translation, as they are different mediums. Unless the director specifically mentions why he made the changes, there is no reason to keep them on Wikipedia. TDS18 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge sourced material into the appropriate movie articles. —« ANIMUM » 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentS. I don't like the form of replying to a whole lot of comments with one liners, so I'll put a lot here. First off, in response to a lot of citing of WP:ATA against "keep" arguments, that same policy includes WP:JUSTAPOLICY which would include the comments by User:Hervegirod, User:Whispering and User:Gnfnrf, as well as to a lesser extent User:Lugnuts. That essay cuts both ways. Next, User:Erik cited above WP:WAF as one of his reasons to "Delete". A badly written article does not mean you should delete that article. Finally, while they are insufficiently sourced now, they CAN BE sourced - User:Fbv65edel above linked to the Harry Potter Lexicon, a valid source, where the site gave a similar comparison. Zakolantern 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. These lists are informative, can be sourced, aren't too trivial; no compelling reason to delete. They are way too long for merging, and merging is not a substitute for deletion. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 01:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.